Martin Burns | Mary Liz Burns

Retirement on the ballot: The Social Security verdict voters can't ignore

The future of Social Security, the government program that touches the lives of more Americans than any other, will be determined by the results of the November elections. Let us explain. The Social Security program faces a funding shortfall. As ABC News reported back in June:

Social Security’s trust fund that pays retiree and survivor benefits is expected to begin running low on money earlier than previously expected, leading to questions from Americans who rely on the benefits for their living expenses. Without congressional action, the fund is now expected to begin depleting by the fourth quarter of 2032, according to a report issued Tuesday by Social Security’s trustees, the body that manages the trust fund.

This does not mean that, as some who for their own political purposes argue, Social Security is going “bankrupt.” Those who depend on Social Security (roughly 68 million Americans) do not have to worry about their checks stopping. Instead, they need to be concerned about a very significant cut to their benefits.

But know this: The reduction can be avoided with courageous political action. Congress and the president can make adjustments that will close the gap and pay out promised benefits. Back in 1983, Congress and President Ronald Reagan hammered out a solution to do just that.

Right now, there are a number of steps that Congress can take that will strengthen Social Security’s finances for today and for future generations. One of the most talked about solutions is raising the cap on the amount of income subject to the Social Security tax—otherwise called “busting the cap.” The Economic Policy Institute points out that:

Earnings above a cap aren’t subject to the payroll taxes that fund Social Security. As a result, billionaires pay the same tax as someone earning $176,100 in 2025 (the cap is indexed to the average wage, so it changes every year). “Scrapping the cap” is a popular and effective way to address Social Security’s funding gap. Nearly three-fourths of Social Security’s projected long-term shortfall would be eliminated if the cap were scrapped without increasing benefits.

Believe it or not there is a bipartisan proposal out there from Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Republican Sen. Bernie Moreno of Ohio. Sens. Warren and Moreno argue that “instead of cutting benefits for the retirees who count on Social Security, we need to take bipartisan action to protect those benefits, reward work, and restore fairness. That starts with a common-sense solution: lifting the Social Security payroll tax cap.”

Other bipartisan members of Congress argue that the best way to address Social Security’s challenges is through the creation of a bipartisan commission made up of 13 members appointed by the president and congressional leaders in both parties. Reps. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) and Representative Tom Suozzi (D-NY) introduced the Bipartisan Social Security Commission Act which would create such a commission. Congress would then only be given an expedited up-or-down vote on the recommendations with no amendments—bypassing regular legislative order. How is public input included in this process? Hint: It isn’t.

It seems to us that raising the tax on income subject to Social Security is a much better step toward securing Social Security’s future than creating a commission that operates outside the public view. Supporters of the commission idea will argue that this is exactly what happened in 1983. This is true, but it ignores the political realities of 1983. An agreement came about because Democrats and President Reagan came together to hammer out an agreement. There is no leadership on this issue from our president.

Creating a commission may sound good to inside the beltway players like the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget but to the millions of Americans who depend on Social Security, creating a commission to deal with the program’s fiscal challenges is just another way of Congress not doing its job.

There can be no doubt that the members of Congress elected this November will chart Social Security’s future. If you care about your retirement security and that of future generations, you have an obligation to ask some tough questions about Social Security. The two questions that we would put to members of Congress are:

  1. If we create a special commission to deal with Social Security, why do we need members of Congress?
  2. Should Elon Musk pay the same amount of Social Security tax that an IT manager earning $184,600 (one hundred dollars over the cap)?

During this election, ask your candidates where they stand on Social Security’s future, and what solutions they support to ensure that our benefits are not cut because of inaction or because of political fear. And tell them what Social Security means to you and to your families. Social Security is the only guaranteed inflation-protected retirement income source for millions of Americans—and that guarantee must be honored by our elected political leaders.

No, Trump did not end taxes on Social Security

Watching President Donald Trump’s speech on national television and Vice President JD Vance’s remarks at the Turning Point event in Arizona, we identified with Bill Murray in the movie Groundhog Day. For those who have not seen the movie, Murray plays a TV weatherman who is trapped reliving the same day, day after day. We felt exactly like Murray when both Trump and Vance claimed once again that they ended taxes on Social Security.

Time after time, fact-checkers and news outlets have pointed out that contrary to Trump and Vance’s claims, the “One Big Beautiful Bill” (OBBB) did not eliminate taxes on Social Security. Most recently, Factcheck.org on December 18 reported that:

Trump called the One Big Beautiful Bill Act he signed in July “perhaps the most sweeping legislation ever passed in Congress” and touted provisions that include “no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, and no tax on Social Security for our great seniors.” (As we have said, fewer seniors would pay taxes on Social Security benefits, but millions of Americans would still have to pay.)

On December 21, Yahoo Finance was quite blunt in assessing Trump’s failure to deliver on his promise to end taxes on Social Security:

Prior to and following his inauguration for a non-consecutive second term, Trump had promised to end the most disliked aspect of Social Security. While his plan received nothing short of thunderous applause and overwhelming support from seniors, he ultimately failed to deliver on his vow when the flagship “big, beautiful bill” was signed into law.

MSN back in July forcefully explained why the OBBB could not have eliminated taxes on Social Security:

First and foremost, the idea that the megabill eliminates federal taxes on Social Security—a claim Trump has made repeatedly of late—is plainly false. In fact, congressional Republicans relied on the budget reconciliation process to advance the package, and it’s procedurally impossible to change Social Security through this complex process.

Rather, as the New York Times reported, “older single filers will get the extra $6,000 deduction ($12,000 for couples), as long as their income falls under a certain ceiling (below $75,000 for single filers or $150,000 for married joint filers). Above those income levels, the deduction begins to decrease, and it goes away once single taxpayers’ income reaches $175,000 ($250,000 for couples).” What’s more, the deduction benefit won’t apply for Social Security recipients younger than 65.

Will the Trump administration continue to misrepresent the impact of the OBBB on Social Security? If the past several months is any guide, the answer is an unequivocal yes. Perhaps the Trump administration, to borrow another pop cultural reference, is operating on the George Costanza principle. For those not familiar with the comedy show Seinfeld, Costanza, a hapless character who constantly misrepresents things, explains that he operates on the principle that “it’s not a lie if you believe it.”

How Democrats can win back Trump voters — if they don't blow it

While the media has covered extensively Democratic successes in the 2025 off-year elections, there is one story that has been dramatically undercovered. This is the fact that the 2025 Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial races show that Democrats can win over Trump voters. Granted, these are not dramatic slices of the Trump coalition, but they are enough in these hyper-polarized times to win elections.

According to CNN polling, in New Jersey Rep. Mikie Sherrill in her race for governor was able to win 7% of those who had voted for Donald Trump in 2024. Interestingly, the Virginia exit polling data shows that Rep. Abigail Spanberger won the identical (7%) of Trump voters.The New York TimesNate Cohn is one of the few journalists who has pointed to the New Jersey and Virginia Democrats’ ability to win over Trump voters. He concludes that:

Instead, the two Democrats won so decisively because they also flipped a crucial sliver of voters who said they supported Mr. Trump in 2024. Ms. Sherrill and Ms. Spanberger both won 7 percent of Mr. Trump’s supporters, according to the exit polls. It may not seem like much to flip 7 percent of Mr. Trump’s backers, but consider: When a voter flips, it adds one voter to one party and also deducts one from the other, making it twice as significant as turning out a new voter.

Looking at the exit polling data makes it clear that while the Democrats margins in New Jersey and Virginia were helped by increased Democratic turnout, winning over 2024 Trump voters was critically important.

One of the key parts of the Trump coalition has always been strong and even almost overwhelming support from rural voters. An analysis by Politico of the Virginia gubernatorial race shows that:

Spanberger’s victory was largely driven by massive turnout in northern and eastern Virginia’s urban areas. But she picked up support across the state’s deep-red central and western counties, where Trump’s tariffs have hit the manufacturing and agricultural industries especially hard. Even as her GOP opponent won most of those places, Spanberger posed the best performance by a statewide Democratic candidate in several cycles, according to a POLITICO analysis of voting data in the localities classified as “rural” by the federal government.

To her great credit, Spanberger targeted rural voters and consistently hammered away on how the Trump administration’s tariff policies were hurting them. In comparison with former Vice President Kamala Harris’s performance in 2024, Spanberger outperformed Harris’ margin in 48 of Virginia’s 52 rural localities. The exit polling shows that Spanberger won 46% of rural voters—an eight-point deficit to Republican candidate Lieutenant Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears, and a 19-point swing from 2021 gubernatorial Democratic nominee Terry McAuliffe’s 27-point disadvantage.

There is also data in the exit polling data indicating that Democrats won back in 2025 Hispanic voters who backed Trump in 2024. The Washington Post reports:

This year, most Democratic statewide candidates won Latino voters by at least 30 points in exit polls, re-creating the margins their party held before 2024. In New Jersey, 18 percent of Latino voters who backed Trump last year cast their ballot for the Democratic gubernatorial candidate, exit poll data showed.

The fact that Democrats won over Trump voters in 2025 has profound implications for Democrats in both the 2026 midterms and the 2028. The message is clear: Some Trump voters will back Democrats if the candidates reach them where they are and talk to them about the issues that they care about most. To assume that all Trump voters are absolutely committed to Trump no matter what the circumstances is a mistaken assumption that only hurts Democrats. Successful politics is always about addition.

Hopefully, Democrats learn from their success in 2025 and realize that they can make some Trump voters part of their winning coalition.

Don't believe Trump's new disinfo campaign about Social Security

Over the summer, GOP members of Congress and the Trump administration—particularly President Donald Trump—will try to sell the American people on his “One Big Beautiful Bill” (OBBB). One of the claims that will be made is that the legislation ends taxes on Social Security. Ending taxation of Social Security benefits was one of the major campaign promises made by Trump when he was campaigning for reelection.

Contrary to claims made by the White House, the president himself, and GOP members of Congress, the OBBB does not end taxation of Social Security. As MSNBC reporting points out, it is procedurally impossible to enact changes in Social Security through the process of reconciliation:

First and foremost, the idea that the megabill (OBBB) eliminates federal taxes on Social Security—a claim Trump has made repeatedly of late—is plainly false. In fact, congressional Republicans relied on the budget reconciliation process to advance the package, and it’s procedurally impossible to change Social Security through this complex process.

Take a moment to let this fact register with you. It is impossible to enact the kind of Social Security changes that the President Trump and his supporters claim.

So, how did misinformation about the impact of the OBBB on Social Security get started? Well, not surprisingly it starts with the White House. A White House press release on July 1 boldly proclaims that “No Tax on Social Security is a Reality in the One Big Beautiful Bill.” The White House disinformation campaign on Social Security went to an unprecedented level when the Social Security Administration (SSA) sent out misinformation on the elimination of taxes on Social Security in the OBBB. As The Washington Post points out:

The Social Security Administration sent an email to millions of Americans soon after the passage of OBBB saying that the landmark legislation “delivers long-awaited tax relief to millions of older Americans” and includes “a provision that eliminates federal income taxes on Social Security benefits for most beneficiaries, providing relief to individuals and couples.”

So, how does the OBBB impact Social Security? Tara Siegel Bernard, of The New York Times, points out what the OBB does is to establish an enhanced tax deduction that will help reduce a household’s annual income, including Social Security. Furthermore, as Bernard points out, “Nor will the extra deduction benefit all Social Security recipients. Retirees who are 62 through 64 are ineligible.”

While Bernard and MSNBC’s coverage of this issue have been outstanding, much of the rest of the mainstream media has been disappointing on a couple of levels. First, the mainstream media has not condemned in clear terms the Trump administration’s politicalization of SSA’s communications with Social Security beneficiaries. Can you imagine the uproar you would hear had President Barack Obama done something similar?

The mainstream media is either too afraid to criticize the Trump administration or too lazy to try and understand the impact of the OBBB on Social Security, which amounts to millions of dollars of Americans’ earned benefits.

Another thing that almost all of the mainstream media is missing is that the OBBB weakens Social Security’s finances and makes the program’s fiscal challenges even more severe. The logic here is easy enough to follow: If you cut the money going into the Social Security trust funds, you weaken the program and push up the date of insolvency for the trust funds.

So, not only is the Trump administration misrepresenting what the OBBB does on the taxation of Social Security benefits, they are not telling you and me that they are weakening Social Security’s ability to pay out full benefits in the near term.

We are not powerless here. Each of us has the ability raise this issue with our members of Congress and with the media. Our answer to Trump’s false claim that the OBBB eliminates taxes is to simply tell the truth—instead of eliminating taxes on Social Security, the OBBB weakens Social Security’s ability to pay full benefits for current and future beneficiaries. Remember, as George Orwell pointed out: “In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”

NOW READ: Is there really a Tea Party movement inside the Democratic Party? The answer may surprise you.

BRAND NEW STORIES
@2026 - AlterNet Media Inc. All Rights Reserved. - "Poynter" fonts provided by fontsempire.com.